Logic circuit having error detection function, redundant resource management method, and fault tolerant system using it

Abstract: The present invention relates to a self-checking circuit and a method of its configuration. More particularly, it concerns a self-checking circuit useful for highly reliable system configuration. As for a logic circuit having error detection function that has function blocks of feeding out a plurality of signals at least duplexed, compares the output signals of the function blocks, and detects an error on the basis of results of the comparison, it comprises synthesizing means provided to superimpose inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals of the function blocks onto the output signals of one of the function blocks. The inherent waveforms are orthogonal waveforms generated by orthogonal waveform generator circuit. The logic circuit also comprises comparison means for comparing a signal output of the synthesizing means with the signal output of the other function block to detect the error. The whole circuit including the function blocks are judged normal only if the waveforms inherent to the both output signals exist.

Description: The present invention relates to a self-checking circuit and a method of its configuration. More particularly, it concerns a self-checking circuit useful for highly reliable system configuration. Also, the present invention relates to a management method of a redundant resource, and more particularly concerns an effective use of the redundant resource in a fault tolerant computer system. Control systems for airplanes, trains, automobiles, and similar means of transportation are increasingly electrolyzed as advanced control performances are needed to increase energy (fuel) efficiency, operationability, comfortability, and their speeds. To run the means of transportation safely, any of the control systems are forcefully required to be high in the reliability and the fail-safe performance that is no dangerous output is caused by occurrence of fault. To assure the reliability and fail-safe performance of the control system, it is important the control system to have a capability of detecting the occurrence of fault, that is, a self-checking capability. To accomplish the self-checking capability, the so-called redundant code is generally used that has a hamming distance of higher than 2 between codes, such as the M-out-of-N code and two-rail logic (1-out-of-2 code) that can be regarded as a kind of the M-out-of-N code. The redundant code can perfectly detect the fault as long as it is a single fault. However, it cannot always detect a multiple of faults. If the self-checking circuit is accomplished in an LSI, a fault may spread over the whole chip. This would be a phenomenon equivalent to the occurrence of the multiple of faults. Assuming errors be random, Eq. 1 below gives a probability η of wrong output signals due to the fault coincide with code points in a specific output code space O. η = No/Nu where No is number of the code points in the output code space O and Nu is number of the code points. Therefore, it is a problem how to increase Nu to No to increase the detection rate. There are the following two methods to accomplish the self-checking circuit having such redundant codes as described above. (1) A method of forming the whole circuit of redundant codes. (2) A method of replicating function blocks and using a self-checking comparison circuit formed of redundant codes to compare signals output of the function blocks. The method (1) above is involved in problems that the circuit must be newly designed to make self-checking and it is difficult to optimize its operation speed. On the other hand, the method (2) has the advantage that usual processor, memory, and other devices can be used for the function blocks since only the comparison circuit should be newly designed in redundant logic. This can decrease the development cost to a great extent. It also can easily make the operation speed high since advanced semiconductor techniques can be used. The self-checking coverage of the method (2) greatly depends on that of the comparator. Accordingly, to accomplish the self-checking comparator, it was proposed to use redundant codes, such as the M-out-of-N code and two-rail logic (1-out-of-2 code), for the logic itself used in the comparison circuit. See, for example, Yoshihiro Toma, "Theory of Fault Tolerant System," Association of Electronics, Information and Communications, 1990. To accomplish the self-checking comparator, they connected the RCCO (Reduction Circuit for Checker Output) circuit shown in Fig. 2.5 on page 31 to a tree structure as shown in Fig. 2.6 on page 32. The probability of fault occurring in the circuits to be compared is low. It is therefore rare that the signals to be compared do not coincide. This means that it is rare that a path to be activated upon detection of the inequality is activated. If there occurs such a mode of fault as fixing so that the signal output of the path always means the 'equality,' it is feared that the fault is made latent. The comparison circuit, therefore, does not only use the redundant code described above, but also uses a frequency logic, alternating checking method, or similar dynamic logics of alternating signal levels as a signal indicating that the circuit is normal (hereinafter referred to as the signature signal), in place of the binary level logic of 0 and 1. As an example, we can use a method of repositioning a permuter for injecting a simulated fault for testing into the RCCO shown in Figs. 2.15 and 5.16 on page 42 in the abovementioned "Theory of Fault Tolerant System." With the method, an alternating output signal is obtained if the operation is normal. the alternating output signal is not obtained, on the other hand, if a fault is caused by change of a threshold value of a semiconductor device changes or a fault is due to change of a dc characteristic of the device, such as a failure stacked at 0 or 1. The method also injects the simulated fault periodically to always confirm operation of the error detection feature. These advantages can make the circuit increase the self-checking performance to a great extent. The above-described prior art has the disadvantage that adverse effect of crosstalk or shortcircuit between wiring nets in the semiconductor device occurs likely. If a fault of the semiconductor device causes crosstalk between the wiring nets or shortciurcuit between the wiring nets or if migration of a wiring material or poor insulation between insulation layers causes shortcircuit, the wiring net that should not have signature signal in itself may have a signature signal of another wiring net induced thereinto adversely (hereinafter referred to as the counterfeit signature). In general, the fail-safe circuit has the signature signal to indicate that the circuit is normal. The circuit may recognize that it is normal in spite of the counterfeit signature due to the crosstalk or the shortcircuit. It is feared that the fail-safe performance of the circuit is lost. To prevent such an occurrence of crosstalk and shortcircuit, the prior art has a special design restriction in the wiring spaces. However, this method has to form transistors and wiring lines on the semiconductor substrate on the basis of the restrictions quite different from the general semiconductors. It cannot have any of the convenience of prior arts and automatic designing tools. Most of designing works must be made manually. Further, computers and transportation controls bear central roles for finance and similar social key industries and parts involved in human life in controlling spaceships and airplanes in recent years. System breakdown or wrong system operation due to fault of the computers is spread to fatal effects in the society. In such a trend, high reliability of the computers is increasingly needed. To make the computers reliable, there is generally used means of redundancy by providing extra computers and units forming the computer in advance. On the other hand, the redundant hardware to make the computer highly reliable results in great increase of costs, dimensions, weight, and power consumption. To enhance the investment effect, or the cost performance, of the fault tolerant computer system, it is needed to increase the redundant hardware resource effectively with respect to the reliability and processing performance. There is a method of redundant resource management to use the redundant hardware resource. That is proposed by Jean-Charles Fabre, et al., "Saturation: reduced idleness for improved fault-tolerance," Proc. FTCS-18 (The 18th Int'l Symp. on Fault-tolerant Computing), pp. 200-205, 1988. The prior art by Jean-Charles Fabre, et al., mentioned above has MNC (minimum number of copies), or redundant copies, provided in advance to be simultaneously executed for each of tasks. If the number of idle nodes (redundant computer modules) is larger than the MNC at the time of arrival of a task execution request, the idle nodes start execution of the task. If the number of idle nodes is smaller than the MNC, the system waits until current execution of the tasks ends to have a required number of idle nodes. The prior art by Jean-Charles Fabre, et al., mentioned above is a useful method of redundant resource management for an OLTP (online transaction processor) that has the task start request made frequently. However, the prior art lacks of sufficient consideration in occurrence of a fault and further occurrence of multiple of faults in view of making highly reliable the real time control computer. This is due to the fact that the proposed prior art is based on the assumption that the task execution time is sufficiently shorter than the MTBF (mean time between failures) with respect to the operational characteristic of the OLTP that the transaction ends in a short time. However, the real time control computer often has tasks executed for a long period of time. The computer of an airplane, spaceship, etc., for example, must not only run for the mission time normally, but also must support even halting the mission. For the reason, the task execution time cannot be ignored as compared with the MTBF. We must take in account the occurrence of the fault and further occurrence of multiple of faults. The above-described prior art has the number of assigned computer modules managed only upon the time of task execution start. Therefore, no computer modules are newly added even if the task executing computer modules is caused to fail to function by occurrence of fault during execution of the task. This means that if the fault occurs during execution of the task, this is continued to execute while the degree of redundance is decreased that is the number of computer modules that is redundantly executing the task. The reliability of the task is lost. If one of two computer modules redundantly executing a task fails to function, for example, should a second fault occur continually, the task is halted to execute. A first advantage of the present invention consists in particular in the fact that a logic circuit having error detection function that has function blocks of feeding out a plurality of signals at least duplexed, compares the output signals of the function blocks, and detects an error on the basis of results of the comparison, comprises synthesizing means provided to superimpose inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals of the function blocks onto the output signals of one of the function blocks, and comparison means for comparing a signal output of the synthesizing means with the signal output of the other function block to detect the error. For a semiconductor device, as an example, a inherent signal waveform is assigned to each of wiring nets corresponding to the above-mentioned output signals as a signature. The signature should be regarded authentic only if the signal waveform coincides with the one inherent to the wiring net. To distinguish an authentic signature from counterfeit signature, it is desirable to make the signatures inherent to wiring nets not correlate to one another. Orthogonal functions are well known not to correlate to one another. Functions fi(x) and fj(x) are orthogonal to each other when -∞ ∞ fi(x)·fj(x)dx =0 The wavelet analysis that can analyze a signal waveform in a time-frequency domain is noted recently in place of the conventional Fourier analysis. The original wavelet also is an orthogonal function. A triangular function and wavelet are analog functions. To use these in a digital circuit, they should be made binary. With the first feature of the present invention, for a semiconductor device, as an example, the inherent signal waveform is assigned to each of the wiring nets as the signature. The signature should be regarded authentic only if the signal waveform coincides with the one inherent to the wiring net. If a fault of the semiconductor device causes crosstalk between the wiring nets of if migration of a wiring material or poor insulation between insulation layers causes shortcircuit, the wiring net may have a counterfeit signature signal of another wiring net induced thereinto adversely. Should it happen, the counterfeit signature can be distinguished from the authentic signature since the counterfeit signature does not coincide the signal waveform inherent of the wiring net. This means that the present invention needs no special wiring restriction to prevent crosstalk or shortcircuit that are indispensable to the prior arts to fully detect faults. In addition, the present invention assures the fail-safe performance. The effectiveness of said conventional technology is based on the presumption that the fault detected in either of the said atleast dualized function blocks is independent of the other function block. In other words, it is premised that the same fault never occurs in both of at-least dualized function blocks at the same time. If the same fault occurs in both of the dualized function blocks at the same time, the fault output from both of the said dualized function blocks match and it becomes impossible to detect the fault by comparing them. This becomes a big problem when dualized function blocks are arranged in the same semi-conductor chip. Such problems may be solved by providing the following control methods according to the invention. The following means that is called diversity may be taken to guarantee the independence of faults to occur in either of the said at-least dualized function blocks. (1) Design diversity The design diversity is an effective means to eliminate the influence of faults caused by designs. Especially, N-Version Programming for software is well known. The N-Version Programming is a method to execute N versions of a program that are developed with the same specifications concurrently. Also in case of hardware, this design diversity can be materialized by developing circuits with the same specifications in N ways. According to this method, however, the number of processes and expenses are needed by N times that of an ordinary method for the design and development. Thus, it is not effective so much. According to the present invention there is provided a logic circuit and a corresponding method as defined in detail in the appended independent claims 1 and 8, respectively. The main current to design modern hardware is using the HDL (Hardware Description Language) to create a file (logical description) that describes the functions and specifications of the subject logical circuits and creating another file (logical net list) that describes the connections of the said logical circuits using a logical synthesis tool on the basis of the HDL. In addition, the said logical net list file is converted to a (physical net list) file that describes the wiring and layout of transistors on the actual semi-conductor chip using an auto wiring tool to create the necessary masks and manufacture semiconductor elements. In this case, the design constraints such as the delay time, occupation area, etc., as well as the subject algorithm can be changed for logical synthesis and automatic wiring to diversify the target logical net list and physical net list. The said dualized function blocks can thus be materialized in the subject semi-conductor chip on the basis of the logical description of the said logical blocks by selecting 2 physical net lists from among the said diversified plural physical net lists. To select 2 physical net lists from among many, it is only needed to define a correlation function that indicates how much those physical net lists are resemble and select a combination of the physical net lists so that the correlation function may be minimized. In this case, fault characteristics of the semiconductor must be affected in the correlation function. In general, wire intersection is pointed out as a weak point of semiconductors. At a wire intersection, two wires are separated only by a thin film oxide, so short-circuits between wires and shorts such as crosstalk, etc. are apt to occur. Furthermore, since a wire crosses over the other at such a wire intersection, the wire located at the difference of level is often cut off with stress. In other words, the status of the intersection between wires affects the fault characteristics of semiconductors. The correlation function in which the fault characteristics of the semi-conductor is affected can thus be defined as follows. [Formula 1] Φ k1k2 = i =1 m j =1 n  ijk1 · jik2 However, the ijk must indicate whether an intersection exists between wiring nets and be defined as follows. [Formula 2] (2) Time diversity A fault that occurs in either of at-least dualized function blocks due to electric noise, etc. can be prevented from affecting the other even when they are designed in the same way, by delaying the timings of their operations individually. And to material such a time diversity, the clock or input signal that decides the timing of a dualized function block operation is entered only to one of the dualized function blocks through a delay circuit. When comparing the output signals from those function blocks, only the signal from the other function block can be output through the delay circuit to compare it with that of the former function block in the comparison circuit. (3) Space diversity When separating one of the said at-least dualized function blocks from the other, it becomes possible to prevent temporary faults that occur in either of those function blocks due to electrical noise, cosmic rays, radiation, etc., as well as due to the damage of the subject semi-conductor chip from affecting the other. When a function block is dualized in a chip and each is checked by itself, the dualized function blocks should be arranged in the same direction and in the same pattern. With this, the effectiveness of the space diversity is maximized. The corresponding sections of the dualized function blocks can therefore have the same distance. As a result, it can be prevented that the said corresponding sections of the dualized function blocks come close to each other excessively to deteriorate the effectiveness of the space diversity. According to this invention, the design diversity, the time diversity, and the space diversity can guarantee the independence of faults to be detected in any of the said at-least dualized function blocks by comparing the outputs from both the function blocks. With this, it is eliminated that the same type faults occur at the same time with a correlation in both the dualized function blocks. It also becomes possible to detect faults by comparing the outputs from those function blocks. A second advantage of the present invention consists in particular in the fact that a distributed fault tolerant system having a plurality of computer modules assigned to execute a plurality of tasks, comprises selection and execution means that if fault occurs in any of the computer modules of the system, selects at least one of the computer modules having the tasks assigned thereto other than the task that the broken computer module, assigns to the selected computer module the task that the broken computer module has executed, and makes the selected computer module execute the task. Each of the computer modules of the present invention operates as follows: (1) The computer module broadcasts its fault occurrence information (fault detection results) and process results to the other computer modules at proper timing (check points) during processing the task. (2) The computer modules calculate their respective evaluation functions Fij, where i is a processor number and j is a task number. The evaluation function Fij can be regarded as a margin for the responsibility to be taken on by the computer module for the task. It is based on equality or inequality of the fault occurrence information (fault detection results) and process results broadcast from the other computer modules. (3) Each of the computer modules decides task j for minimizing the evaluation function Fij as a process to execute before switching the task in process to the process to be executed. The evaluation function Fij represents a margin of reliability of the task. Therefore, it should be determined so that Fij can be low as importance of the task is high, Fij can be low as responsibility of the computer module for the task is high, and Fij can be high as the reliability of the task is high. An example of the evaluation function Fij meeting the conditions mentioned above is Fij = Lrj - Lthij, or Fij = Lrj / Lthij where Lthij is a threshold value of the reliability level of task j in the computer module i, Lrj is the reliability level of task j, i is an own computer module number, and j is the task number. Another example of the evaluation function Fij meeting the conditions mentioned above is Fij = log{(1 - Lthij)/Pej} where Pej is a probability of wrong calculation results of task j. It should be noted that Lthij that is the threshold value of the reliability level of task j is different depending on the importance of the task. It is set to high value as the task is needed to have high importance or high reliability. Further, Lthij has to be different depending on the computer module. It has to be high as the responsibility of the computer module is high for the task. With the second feature of the present invention, the computer modules are assigned to the tasks so that the evaluation functions Fij can be made to always balance. This will not make Fij of a specific task jut out too high or low. That is, if there is the specific task of low reliability level (hereinafter referred to as the endangered task) due to occurrence of fault during operation, a computer module in execution of another task having margin of reliability is made to execute the endangered task. This can prevent the reliability level of the specific task alone from being lowered. For the reason, the second feature can countermeasure any occurrence of fault during execution of the tasks so that the responsibility given to the system can fulfilled while the reliability is kept. Also, since Lthij is set high as the importance of a task is high, Fij can be balanced with the other tasks at higher Lrj. For the reason, number of computer modules should be assigned much to the task the importance of which is high to keep higher reliability level Lrj. Further, since each of the computer modules can autonomously decide the task to execute, it is needed to have a central arrangement for assigning task executions, thereby causing no single fault points. This means the single fault will not affect the whole system, thereby being capable of increasing the system reliability. The above and other objects, features and advantages of the present invention will be apparent from the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments of the invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which: Fig. 1 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating a basic embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 2 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment corresponding to function blocks; Fig. 3 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention having a comparator formed of the RCCO tree; Fig. 4 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention in which signals fed from a function block B also have an orthogonal waveform added thereto; Fig. 5 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention in which orthogonal waveform generating circuits are duplexed; Fig. 6 depicts a signal timing chart illustrating the orthogonal function waveforms; Fig. 7 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the orthogonal waveform generator circuit; Fig. 8 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of an integrator circuit; Fig. 9 depicts a timing chart illustrating the orthogonal function waveforms and signature output signal; Fig. 10 depicts a timing chart illustrating the orthogonal function waveforms and signature output signal at a time of fault; Fig. 11 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of another integrator circuit; Fig. 12 depicts another timing chart illustrating the orthogonal function waveforms and signature output signal at a time of fault; Fig. 13 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of another integrator circuit; Fig. 14 depicts another timing chart illustrating the orthogonal function waveforms and signature output signal; Fig. 15 depicts a detailed circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 16 depicts a block diagram illustrating a self-checking computer made up of the present invention; Fig. 17 depicts a block diagram illustrating a fault tolerant computer made up of the self-checking computer; Fig. 18 depicts a block diagram illustrating a switching control circuit; Fig. 19 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating a self-checking comparator according to the present invention; Fig. 20 depicts a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a fault tolerant system according to the present invention; Fig. 21 depicts a conceptually functional outline illustrating a configuration of a computer module of the present invention; Fig. 22 depicts a conceptually functional outline illustrating another configuration of the computer module of the present invention; Fig. 23 depicts a conceptual outline illustrating an embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 24 depicts a conceptual outline illustrating another embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 25 depicts a conceptual outline illustrating another embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 26 depicts a flow chart illustrating condition judgement features that decide a task to be executed by the present invention; Fig. 27 depicts a timing chart illustrating instants of switching a task; Fig. 28 depicts a flow chart illustrating condition judgement features having dead-zone that decide a task to be executed by the present invention; Fig. 29 depicts a timing chart illustrating a change of Fij without dead-zone; Fig. 30 depicts a timing chart illustrating a change of Fij with dead-zone; Fig. 31 depicts a graph illustrating number of normal computer modules assigned with time; Fig. 32 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of averaging Lrj; Fig. 33 depicts a timing chart illustrating a change of Fij without averaging Lrj; Fig. 34 depicts a timing chart illustrating a change of Fij with averaging Lrj; Fig. 35 depicts a timing diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention for relaxing increases of amount of communications among the computer modules; Fig. 36 depicts a flow chart illustrating a judgement whether or not broadcasting should be made; Fig. 37 depicts a flow chart illustrating another judgement whether or not broadcasting should be made; Fig. 38 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention for application to an adaptive-control system; Fig. 39 depicts a table illustrating how the computer modules are assigned; Fig. 40 depicts a cross-sectioned view illustrating a servo-motor system as an embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 41 depicts a longitudinally sectioned view taken across A-A' in Fig. 40 illustrating the servo-motor system; Fig. 42 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating a circuit for the servo-motor system; and Fig. 43 depicts a block diagram illustrating a system configuration in use for the servo-motor systems; Fig. 44 is a design automation by automatic logical synthesis tool and automatic wiring tool; Fig. 45 is a diversified design by diversifying constraints; Fig. 46 is an example of extracting some design results from diversified design results; Fig. 47 is an example of diversifying an operation time; Fig. 48 is another example of diversifying an operation time; Fig. 49 is still another example of diversifying an operation time; and Fig. 50 is an embodiment of a layout in a chip. The embodiments of the invention will be set forth in detail with reference to the accompanying figures and in the following three chapters of (1) Self-checking logic, (2) Redundancy resource management, and (3) Diversities. 1. Self-checking logics The following describes in detail self-check comparators that are embodiments according to the present invention, by reference to Figs. 1 to 19. Fig. 1 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating the comparator that is an embodiment of the present invention. In operation, signals a0 to an (10 to 1n) fed from a function block A have errors injected thereto for testing by permuters 80 to 8n according to an orthogonal waveform (test pattern) generated by an orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100. The signals having the errors become error-injected signals a0' to an' (10' to 1n'). Note that the permuters 80 to 8n, as shown in the figure, are exclusive-ORes that has a feature capable of injection of pseudo-errors for testing. In turn, the error-injected signals 10' to 1n' are compared with signals b0 to bn (20 to 2n) fed from a function block B by comparison circuits 30 to 3n. Comparison results 40 to 4n are collected in a integrated circuit 5. The integrated circuit 5 can feed out a signature signal of normality to a signature output 6 only when the comparison results 40 to 4n are normal signatures. Let ai' represent any one of the error-injected signals a0' to an' (10' to 1n'). Then, ai' = ai^pi where i is a signal number of 0 to n, pi is the orthogonal waveform (test pattern) generated by the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100, and ^ is an operator for the exclusive-ORes. Also let ci represent any one of the comparison results c0 to cn (40 to 4n). Then, ci = ai'^bi = ai^pi^bi If the function blocks A and B are normal, ai = bi. Then, ai^bi = 0 . Hence, ci = pi Since any ones of pi with i being 1 to n are orthogonal to each other, ci also is orthogonal with cj, where i is not equal to j. Assuming ai and pi are statistically independent, or orthogonal, ai and ai' are orthogonal to each other, and bi and ai' also are orthogonal to each other. In addition to the orthogonal waveforms, the group of waveforms include correlated waveforms of ai with bi and pi with ci. In order to prevent the counterfeit signature from being generated by the crosstalk or the shortcircuit mentioned previously, the circuit layout should be designed so as to separate the signal ai from bi and the signal pi from ci physically. This will keep generation of the counterfeit signature due to the crosstalk or the shortcircuit from affecting the function. An embodiment of the circuit layout will be discussed later by referring to Fig. 15. The embodiment of the present invention described above can provide a fully self-checking comparator without any special wiring limit. The function blocks A 110 and B 111 shown in Fig. 2 do not always feed out the effective signals a0 to an (10 to 1n) and b0 to bn (20 to 2n), but often feed out the together with strobe signals that indicate that the signals a0 to an (10 to 1n) and b0 to bn (20 to 2n) are effective. In those cases, as shown in Fig. 2, latch 120 and 121 should be held when the strobe signals 130 and 131 make effective the signals a0 to an (10 to 1n) and b0 to bn (20 to 2n). The kind of signals used for the strobe signals in a circuit having a microprocessor used is different depending on the microprocessor. The strobe signals available for an address signal and a control signal include AS (address strobe) and BS (bus start), and the ones for data signals are TA (transfer acknowledge) and DTACK (data transfer acknowledge). Fig. 3 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention having a comparator formed of the RCCO tree described in "Theory of Fault Tolerant System," Yoshihiro Toma, Association of Electronics, Information and Communications, 1990. In operation, signals a0 to an (10 to 1n) fed from the function block A have errors injected thereto for testing by the permuters 80 to 8n according to the orthogonal waveform (test pattern) generated by the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100. The signals having the errors become error-injected signals 10' to 1n', which are fed to the RCCO tree 3. Note that in the RCCO tree, the signature output 6 also is of binary logic. The RCCO tree 3, like the embodiment in Fig. 1, has an input and output signals made orthogonal therein to prevent shortcircuit from generating counterfeit signature. The embodiments given below are described on the basis of the comparison circuit in Fig. 1. The comparison circuit of the RCCO tree can be embodied in a similar way unless otherwise specified. Fig. 4 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention in which signals b0 to bn (20 to 2n) fed from a function block B have errors injected thereto by permuters 90 to 9n according to an orthogonal waveform generated by an orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100. The embodiment can prevent a stack failure input to the comparison circuit from becoming latent if bi is kept at the same value for a long period of time. If bi is an address signal and a program uses addresses in a specific area only, for example, a high bit of the address is kept at the same value for a long period of time. Fig. 5 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention in which the function blocks A and B are associated with independent orthogonal waveform generator circuits 100 and 101, respectively. This embodiment having orthogonal waveform generator circuits 100 and 101 duplexed to detect and report any of failures of the orthogonal waveform generator circuits 100 and 101. The embodiment also can make use of a superiority of independency of the two systems on the circuit layout that will be discussed later by referring to Fig. 15. Fig. 6 depicts a signal timing chart illustrating an embodiment of the present invention that uses waveforms of which pulses are turned on at time slots inherent to wiring nets. The figure shows output patterns p0 to pn of the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100 and comparison results c0 to cn (40 to 4n) when both the function blocks A 110 and B 111 are normally. Fig. 7 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100 for generating the patterns as in Fig. 6. In operation, if the system is power on to reset, a reset signal is made active to preset a flip-flop 1001 to '1' as initial value, then resets flip-flops 1002 to 100m to '0' as initial value. That is, the train of flip-flops 1001 to 100m are set to 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, ..., and 0. After the power-on resetting, a CLK (clock) signal successively shifts the pattern of 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, ..., and 0 to generate the pattern as in Fig. 6. The flip-flops 1001 to 100m are made redundant and if majority outputs of each of the redundant flip-flops are taken. Then, that can prevent software errors of the flip-flops due to noises and radioactivity and temporary errors, such as transient fault, called the single event upsets. That also can increase the reliability. Of course, the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100 also can be used in the RCCO tree 3 in Fig. 3. Fig. 8 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of an integrated circuit 5 useful for the pattern in Fig. 6. Such a simple OR as in Fig. 8 can make different waveforms of the patterns in Fig. 6. This allows us to know occurrence of failure. Even if shortcircuit occurs among the wiring nets, an authentic signature will not appear on the signature output 6 wrongly, or no counterfeit signature can be fed out, because there are no other wiring nets that use the authentic signature for p2 and c2. This means that even if a counterfeit signature is generated by a shortcircuit, the embodiment can assure of a fail-safe performance. Fig. 11 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention that has an excess pulse detection feature in addition to the pulse extraction detection feature of the integrator circuit in Fig. 8. The excess pulse is defined here as a phenomenon that some of the signals c0 to cn (40 to 4n) are on simultaneously. In operation, if any one of the signals c0 to cn (40 to 4n) is turned on as in Fig. 9, both OR 50 and EOR 51 generate the signature output signal 6 as in the figure. If c2 and cn are turned on at the same time as in Fig. 12, the signature output line 61 has a pulse extracted as shown in the figure. As the pulse-extracted signal is different from the normal one, it helps us to know of generation of failure. Fig. 13 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the integrator circuit 5 further having order of coming pulses taken into account. In operation, if the signature pulses as comparison results come in normal order of c0, c1, c2, ..., and cn, the signature output signal 6 is level-reverted whenever the signature pulse comes in, as shown in Fig. 14. If any of the signature pulses of c0, c1, c2, ..., and cn is extracted, however, the signature output signal 6 cannot be reverted or its period is made very longer. As the period of the signature output signal 6 in this embodiment is made very longer at failure, it is easy to detect the failure. Fig. 15 depicts a detailed circuit diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention. In operation, the signals a0 to an (10 to 1n) fed from the function block A 110 are latched in a latch 120 by a strobe signal 130. The latched signals are exclusive-ORed with the orthogonal waveforms of the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100 in the permuters 80 to 8n to become a0' to an' (10' to 1n'). Similarly, the signals b0 to bn (20 to 2n) fed from the function block B 111 are latched in a latch 121 by a strobe signal 131. The latched signals are exclusive-ORed with the orthogonal waveforms of the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 101 in the permuters 90 to 9n to become b0' to bn' (20' to 2n'). The signals a0' to an' (10' to 1n') and b0' to bn' (20' to 2n') formed above are compared by the comparison circuits 40 to 4n. The comparison circuits 40 to 4n feed out comparison results c0 to cn (40 to 4n). The comparison results becomes signature outputs 6 through the integrator circuit 5. The circuit of the embodiment is divided into three areas: an area 0 (200), including the comparison circuits 40 to 4n and the integrated circuit 5, an area 1 (201), including the function block A 110, the latch 120, the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100, and the permuters 80 to 8n, and an area 2 (202), including the function block B 111, the latch 121, the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 101, and the permuters 90 to 9n. The areas 0 (200), 1 (201), and 2 (202) can be formed in individual chips. The areas also can be formed in a single chip. In this case, areas 0 (200), 1 (201), and 2 (202) should be arranged to have distances from one another and/or have individual power grounds to prevent a failure from spreading. The circuit construction of the embodiment described above has the advantage that no influence can be caused by generation of the counterfeit signature due to shortcircuit as the correlated signals ai and bi and the ones pi and ci can be isolated from one another geometrically, physically, and electrically. In general, it is efficient for designing a high-performance LSI to use a heuristic method of human experiences and intuition for rough layout or floor plan before automatically wiring its details on the basis of a specific algorithm. Accordingly, many existing automatic wiring tools provide features for entering the rough layout or floor plan by person and the ones for automatic wiring the details. The method of the embodiment matches with, or suites to, of the features of the existing automatic wiring tools well. This means that the method can make use of the features of the automatic wiring tools to the best. The embodiment described above can be easily achieved to check itself in the way that the function blocks formed in an ordinary logic design should be copied logically or optically before being combined with the area 0 (200) of the comparison circuits 40 to 4n and the integrated circuit 5. This can not only increase the reliability, but also reduce number of the development steps and development cost to great extents. Fig. 16 depicts a block diagram illustrating a self-checking computer made up of the present invention. The function blocks A 110 and B 111 are connected with respective MPUs (microprocessing units), WDTs (watch dog timers), INTCs (interrupt controllers), and other computer elements through respective interface buses 212 and 213. The function blocks also are connected to respective external buses 206 and 207 through respective interfaces 204 and 205. In operation, the comparator of the present invention compares the signals on the internal buses 212 and 213 with the signals having signatures superimposed thereon by the permuters 80 to 8n and 90 to 9n according to the pattern generated by the orthogonal waveform generator circuits 100 and 101 to judge whether or not the function blocks A 110 and B 111 is normal. If the signals on the internal buses 212 and 213 coincide, the comparator (area 0 (200)) feeds the signature signal out to the signature output signal 6. Further, a single-chip self-checking microcomputer can be achieved in the way that as shown in Fig. 16, the function block A 110 (area 1 (202)), the function block B 111 (area 2 (202)), and the comparator (area 0 (200)) should be isolated from one another according to the layout shown in Fig. 15, and the their power grounds should be separated on the single chip. Note that the latches 120 and 121 are omitted in the figure for simplicity. The comparator (area 0 (200)) can check the signals on the external buses 206 and 207 in addition to the ones on the internal buses 212 and 213. This allows monitoring all the operations of the whole LSI, including that of the interfaces 204 and 205. The embodiment described above can be easily achieved to check itself in the way that the function blocks formed of the MPUs (micro-processing units), the WDTs (watch dog timers), the INTCs (interrupt controllers), and other microcomputer elements in an ordinary design should be copied logically or optically at a mask pattern level to duplex before being combined with the area 0 (200) of the comparison circuits 40 to 4n and the integrated circuit 5. This can not only increase the reliability, but also reduce the number of development steps and development cost to great extents. Fig. 17 depicts a block diagram illustrating a fault tolerant computer made up of the self-checking computer. In operation, one of signals fed out of self-checking computers 203 and 203' to respective external buses 206 (207) and 206' (207') is selected by an output selector circuit 210 to lead to a final output line 211. The output selector circuit 210 is controlled by a switching control signal 209 generated by a switching control circuit 208 on the basis of the signature outputs 6 and 6'. That is, the output selector circuit 210 selects the signal output of the self-checking computer regarded normal on the basis of the signature outputs 6 and 6' fed from the self-checking computers 203 and 203'. Fig. 18 depicts a block diagram illustrating the switching control circuit 208. In operation, the signature monitoring circuits 212 and 213 monitor the signature outputs 6 and 6'. If the signature outputs 6 and 6' are normal, the signature monitoring circuits feed out 'normal' signals to monitored result lines 214 and 215, respectively. If any of the signature outputs 6 and 6' is abnormal, the signature monitoring circuit feeds out an 'abnormal' signal to the monitored result line 214 or 215. A judge logic 216 feeds out a signal meaning "select external bus 206' (207')" to the switching control signal 209 only when the signature output 6 is abnormal and the signature output 6' is normal. In the other cases, the judge logic 216 feeds out a signal meaning "select external bus 206 (207)." For simplicity on drawings, level H of binary logic denotes the signal of 'normal' of the monitored result line 214 or 215; level L is the signal of 'abnormal'; level H also is the signal meaning "select external bus 206' (207')" fed to the switching control signal 209; and level L also is the signal meaning "select external bus 206 (207)." These signals of the present invention are not limited to the binary logic, but can be made in any of redundant logics, such as two-wire logic (1-out-of-2 code), frequency logic, and the signature provided inherent to every net by the present invention. This can make highly reliable the switching control circuit 208 and the whole system as well. The following further describes the embodiment of the signature monitoring circuits 212 and 213. If the signature output signal 6 is a periodic waveform as shown in Fig. 9, the signature monitoring circuits 212 and 213 can be accomplished in the way that a counter should be arranged to monitor that the pulse arrives at certain intervals. If the signature output signal 6 is a further complicated waveform, the signature monitoring circuits 212 and 213 can be accomplished in the way that the signature output signal 6 should be correlated with a reference (template) waveform, and if the correlation is 1.0, the signature should be judged normal or if the correlation is less than 1.0, the signature should be judged abnormal. With the embodiment described above, we can structure the fault tolerant system of hot standby type having the self-checking computer 203 as a main system and the self-checking computer 203' as a substitute system (standby system). In addition, the detection method of little detection missing provided by the present invention can accomplish the system of higher reliability than the conventional ones. The self-checking computers provided by the present invention can be used in fault tolerant systems of various configuration as well as the system configuration described above. For example, the self-checking computers can be used in the system that the inventors already disclosed in the Japanese Patent Application No. 03-15946 (corresponding US-A-5084878). This can be accomplished in a way that the subsystems 1-1 to 1-N shown in Fig. 5 in the Japanese Patent Application should be replaced by the self-checking computer 203 provided by the present invention, the outputs 3-1 to 3-N in the application should be replaced by the external bus 208 (207) of the present invention, and the cross diagnosed results 4-1 to 4-N in the application should be replaced by the signature output 6 of the present invention. Fig. 19 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating a self-checking comparator according to the present invention. The comparator 217 is divided into three areas: area 0 (200), area 1 (201), and area 2 (202). Area 0 200 includes the comparison circuits 40 to 4n and the integrator circuit 5. Area 1 (201) includes the latch 120, the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 100, and the permuters 80 to 8n. Area 2 (202) includes the latch 121, the orthogonal waveform generator circuit 101, and the permuters 90 to 9n. Areas 0 (200), 1 (201), and 2 (202) should be arranged to have distances from one another and/or have individual power grounds to prevent a failure from spreading. The circuits of the comparator mentioned above are arranged in a single chip. The comparator 217 is connected with the external function blocks A 110 and B 111 to compare their outputs. The circuit construction of the embodiment described above, like the embodiment described in Fig. 15, has the advantage that no influence can be caused by generation of the counterfeit signature due to shortcircuit as the correlated signals ai and bi and the ones pi and ci can be isolated from one another geometrically, physically, and electrically. The embodiment has the advantage that the fail-safe performance can be assured even if a counterfeit signature is generated by shortcircuit. This means that to accomplish a fail-safe logic circuit, the present invention needs no special limits, but can take advantage of using the existing semiconductor technology and automatic designing tools. It can be expected to reduce both development cost and time to great extents. 2. Redundancy resource management In turn, the following paragraphs describe the managing method of redundant resource and the fault tolerant system with use of it that are embodiments of the present invention, by referring to Figs. 20 to 43. A. PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION Fig. 23 depicts a conceptual outline illustrating an embodiment of the present invention. As an example, it is assumed in the figure that computer modules 1101 to 110(i - 1) executes task 1 for redundancy, computer modules 110i to 110m executes task 2 for redundancy, the system cannot run normally because of fault of the computer module 110(i - 1). If the system cannot run normally because of fault of the computer module 110(i - 1), the computer module 110i halts the execution of task 2 and starts execution of task 1. This can relax extensive reduction of number of the computer modules executing task 1 due to the fault of the computer module 110(i - 1), thereby preventing high fall of reliability of task 1. Fig. 24 depicts a conceptual outline illustrating an embodiment of the present invention in which evaluation functions F1 and F2 are introduced to judge for task switching the computer module 110i in Fig. 23. It is assumed that the evaluation functions F1 and F2 are the ones that reflect the reliabilities of tasks 1 and 2, respectively. A method of determining the evaluation functions will be described later. On the left in the figure, the evaluation function F1 (reliability) is made lower than F2 as fault occurs in the computer module 110(i- 1) executing task 1. Then, as shown on the left in the figure, the computer module 110i of the computer modules executing task 2 is added to execute task 1 so that the evaluation functions F1 and F2 become virtually equal. If the evaluation functions are made to greatly differ with occurrence of fault, determination which computer module should change executing task is made in the way that responsibilities of each computer module are set for the tasks in advance. In the embodiment, among the computer modules 110i to 110m executing task 2, the computer module 110i has the highest responsibility for task 1. If the hardware for performing the redundant resource managing features, including the task changing feature and the judgement feature, is not made redundant but single, it may happen that fault of the hardware prevents the whole system and the redundant resource managing features as well from normally running. To avoid this, it is needed to make redundant the hardware itself for performing the redundant resource managing features. There are three methods for making it redundant. (1) A method of adding and making redundant an exclusive hardware to carry on the redundant resource managing features, and (2) A method of using a plurality of ones of the computer modules 1101 to 110(i - 1) to carry on the redundant resource managing features and to judge which computer module should change executing task, and (3) A method of having the redundant resource managing features to make the computer modules 1101 to 110(i - 1) judge and execute the task by themselves. The method (1) can be accomplished by having a plurality of the hardware and/or software to achieving the redundant resource managing features shown in Figs. 23 and 24. The method (2) can be accomplished in a way that the tasks for making the redundant resource managing features shown in Figs. 23 and 24 should be allotted to a plurality of compute modules and like the other tasks, subjected to the redundant resource managing features. In turn, an embodiment of the method (3) is described below. Fig. 25 depicts a conceptual outline illustrating the embodiment of the method (3) in which each of the computer module can independently judge by itself whether or not it should be added to execute the task of low evaluation function if the evaluation functions are made to differ greatly with occurrence of fault. The computer modules 1101 to 110m calculate their respective evaluation functions Fij, where i is a processor number and j is a task number. Each of the evaluation functions Fij should be defined so that it is made low as the computer module has high responsibility for task j. In other words, the evaluation function Fij can be regarded as a margin for the responsibility to be taken on by the computer module for the task. In Fig. 25, for example, the computer modules 1101 to 110m bear high responsibility for task 1 and is low for task 2 in that order. Therefore, even if all the computer modules are normal as shown on the left in Fig. 25, the evaluation functions are F11 < F21 for 1101 to 110(i - 1), it holds that Fil < Fi2. For the computer modules 110i to 110m, it holds that Fi1 > Fi2 holds. The computer modules therefore executes their tasks 1 and 2, respectively. If fault occurs in the computer modules 110(i - 1) as shown on the center in Fig. 25, all the computer modules are lowered in Fi1, the computer module 110i is reverted in the relationship of value between Fi1 and Fi2, that is, Fi1 < Fi2. Therefore, the computer module 110i, as shown on the center in Fig. 25, halts execution of task 2 by its own independent judgement before starting task 1. As described above, the embodiment makes each of the computer modules independently change the task by its own judgement. The embodiment therefore has no so-called manager in which the redundant resource managing features are concentrated for the whole system. This means that the embodiment has no single fault point as bottleneck in increasing the reliability, thus being capable of increasing the dependability of the redundant resource managing features themselves. The embodiments described above by referring to Figs. 23 to 25 have only two tasks, tasks 1 and 2, used in the system to execute as an example for simplicity. Of course, the embodiments can manage the redundant resource also for any number of tasks as desired. As for selections of results of calculation by redundant computer modules for tasks, they can be made by decision of majority or the method that the inventors already disclosed in the Japanese Patent Application No. 1-288928. B. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION Fig. 20 depicts a block diagram illustrating a system configuration to accomplish the present invention. The system of the present invention is formed of m numbers of computer modules 1101 to 110m having the same functions. Tasks 1111 to 111n have a plurality of computer modules assigned thereto to execute redundantly for highly reliable operation. In the example shown in Fig. 20, i1 numbers of the computer modules 1101 to 110i1 are assigned to task 1 (1111), (i2 - i1) numbers of the computer modules 110(i1 + 1) to 110i2 are to task 2 (1112), and (i n+1 - m) numbers of the computer modules 110 (i n+1 + 1) to 110m are to task n(111n). Each of the computer modules 1101 to 110m can feed out signals to output selector circuits 151 to 15λ. Note that the signals 31-1 to 31-λ to 3m-1 to 3m-λ are fed out to the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ for the computer modules 110-1 to 110-m, respectively. Also, the computer modules 110-1 to 110-m feed out selection control signals 41-1 to 41-λ to 4m-1 to 4m-λ to the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ together with the output signals 31-1 to 31-λ to 3m-1 to 3m-λ. The selection control signals 41-1 to 41-λ to 4m-1 to 4m-λ indicate whether or not the output signals 31-1 to 31-λ to 3m-1 to 3m-λ should be selected by the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ. If the computer module 1101 is normal and feeds out the signal 31-3 to the output selector circuit 151 to have that signal fed out thereto, for example, the selection control signal 41-1 is turned on. The figure has only the output signals 31-1 to 31-λ and the selection control signals 41-1 to 41-λ indicated therein, but omits the output signals 32-1 to 32-λ to 3m-1 to 3m-λ and the selection control signals 42-1 to 42-λ to 4m-1 to 4m-λ. The output selector circuits 151 to 15λ decide the signals to be fed out on the basis of the selection control signals 41-1 to 41-λ to 4m-1 to 4m-λ. The signals becomes outputs 161 to 16λ. Note that the outputs 161 to 16 are connected to output units 171 to 17λ. Also, note that in many control units, the output units 171 to 17λ use electrical and hydraulic actuators to control subjects. For the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ is available the MV (modified voter) that the inventors already disclosed in Fig. 2 in the Japanese Patent Application No. 1-288928. Fig. 21 depicts a conceptually functional outline illustrating a configuration of the computer module 110i to embody the present invention. The computer module 110i has a task executing device 12i, a fault data exchanging feature 13i, a judging feature 14i for deciding a task to be executed, and a task changing feature 15i. These are to select and execute the task to be executed from among task 1 (1111) to task n (111n) on the basis of a judgement result by the judging feature 14i. In the embodiment shown in the Fig. 21, the computer module 1101 executes task 1 (1111). The fault data exchanging feature 13i broadcasts a fault occurrence situation in its own computer module and the process results of the executed task to other computer modules via a communication path 11. At the same time, the feature collects the fault occurrence situations broadcast by the other computer modules and the process results of the executed task. Previously proposed methods of communicating with the other computer modules via the communication path 11 include the method of message passing, the method of shared memory, and the method of memory bank switching. Previously proposed forms of the communication path 11 include the bus type, the net type, and ring type. Fig. 22 depicts a block diagram illustrating a configuration of the computer module 110i to embody the present invention. A bus 20i in the figure is connected with an MPU (micro-processing unit) 21i, a communication interface 22i, an output interface 23i, a selection control signal interface 24i, and a memory unit 25i. The communication interface 22i is connected with the other computer modules via the communication path 11 for communication with any of them. The fault data exchanging feature 13i in the figure is accomplished through the selection control signal interface 24i. An output interface 23i is a circuit for feeding out signals 3i-1 to 3i-λ to the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ. The signals can be transferred either in parallel or serial way depending on use. If the output interfaces 23i are arranged to feed out their respective independent signals 3i-1 to 3i-λ, they can be used for an application in which a plurality of output units are used simultaneously. The selection control signal interface 24i is a circuit for feeding out selection control signals 4i-1 to 4i-λ to the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ. The MPU 21i can be used to write at a register of the selection control signal interface 24i to turn on, or select, any desired one of the selection control signals 4i-1 to 4i-λ. Conditions for turning on, or selecting, the selection control signal 4i-λ', where λ' is an integer of 1 to λ, include a. The computer module 110i executes a task of feeding out the signal 3i-1' to the output selector circuit 151'; and b. The computer module 110i regards that the executing task is normal. For a method of judging normal or abnormal in condition b is available the one that the inventors already disclosed in the Japanese Patent Application No. 1-288928. If the computer module 1101 executes task 1 that is normal and feeds out the signal to the output selector circuit 151, and if fault occurs in the other computer module 110-i that executes task 2 that feeds out the signal to the output selector circuit 152, and if the computer module 110i bears the highest responsibility for task 2, then the computer module 110i halts execution of task 1 before starting task 2. In that event, the selection control signal 41-1 from the computer module 1101 to the output selector circuit 151 that is on during execution of task 1 is turned off at the end of execution of task 1. At the start of execution of task 2, the selection control signal 42-1 the output selector circuit 152 is turned on. Further, the selection control signal 4i-2 from the computer module 110-i to the output selector circuit 152 that is on is turned off at the instance when fault occurs. As a result, after the fault occurrence, the output selector circuit 152 can select the output signal 32-1 from the computer module 1101 as an output signal 162 to feed to an actuator 172, while before the fault occurrence, the output selector circuit 152 selects the output signal 32-i from the computer module 110-i executing task 2 normally as the output signal 162 to feed to the actuator 172, As described above, the embodiment of the present invention can use the plurality of computer modules to execute the plurality of tasks in parallel and redundant way. In the description, it was assumed that the single task feeds out signal to the plurality of actuators. Also, it can be assumed that the single task feeds out signal to the plurality of actuators or no tasks will feed out signal to the actuators at all. C. CALCULATION AND DECISION ALGORITHM OF EVALUATION FUNCTIONS Fig. 26 depicts a flow chart illustrating decision features 14-1 to 14-m that decide a task to be executed by the present invention. An evaluation function calculation step 300 in the figure calculates an evaluation function Fij, where j is a task number, for the given task. As mentioned previously, the evaluation function Fij represents a margin of reliability of the task. Therefore, it should be determined so that Fij can be low as importance of the task is high, Fij can be low as responsibility of the computer module for the task is high, and Fij can be high as the reliability of the task is high. That is, ∂Fij/∂I < 0, ∂Fij/∂Resp < 0, and ∂Fij/∂Rel > 0, where I is the importance, Resp is the responsibility, and Rel is the reliability. An example of the evaluation function Fij meeting the conditions mentioned above is Fij = Lrj - Lthij where Lthij is a threshold value of the reliability level of task j in the computer module i, Lrj is the reliability level of task j, i is an own computer module number, and j is the task number. It should be noted that Lthij that is the threshold value of the reliability level of task j is different depending on the importance of the task. It is set to high value as the task is needed to have high importance or high reliability. Further, if all the computer modules have the same value of Lthij set thereto, they all execute the same task at occurrence of fault. This results in unstable system operation. Therefore, Lthij has to be different depending on the computer module. It has to be high as the responsibility of the computer module is high for the task. That is, ∂Lthij/∂I > 0, and ∂Lthij/∂Resp > 0. The following describes how to decide the reliability level Lrj of task j. The evaluation function that is the reliability level Lrj should be calculated in terms of fault data that are fault detection results, including number of the computer modules executing task j, equality and inequality of the process results, and number of the processors having equal process results. First, take note of a probability that wrong results are used as outputs of the system. Then, the reliability level Lrj can be calculated in terms of degree of accepted checks. Where N1 numbers of computer modules are executing task j, if N2 numbers of computer modules are judged normal as checked and if calculation results of N3 numbers of computer modules coincide, then the probability Pej of wrong calculation results of task j is Pej = Pε N1 x Pεd N2 x Pεa N3 - 1 where Pε is the probability of error occurrence, Pεd is a probability of checking failure of error, and Pεa is a probability of accidental coincidence of wrong calculation results. Note that as Pε, Pεd, and Pεa are known constants that can be obtained in terms of the system operation environment and error detection method, and Pej is a function of N1, N2, and N3 - 1. The reliability level of task j that is a probability of correct calculation results is given by Lrj = 1 - Pej Let Lrj be evaluated by magnitude of Pej in Eq. 8 for simplicity. Logarithm is taken for Eq. 7 is log(Pej) = N1 x log(Pε) + N2 x log(Pεd) + N(3 - 1) x log(Pεa) As the values of Pε, Pεd, and Pεa can be calculated by means of field data or simulation, let logarithms of the values be represented by K1, K2, and K3. Eq. 9 can be simplified as log(Pe) = N1 x K1 + N2 x K2 + (N3 - 1) x K3 Also, take note of the probability Pe of wrong calculation results in place of the evaluation function in Eq. 6. Let the evaluation function Fij be defined as Fij = log{(1 - Lthij)/Pe} Then, Fij = K4 - N1 x K1 + N2 x K2 + (N3 - 1) x K3 where K4 = log(1 - Lthij) . Thus, the evaluation function Fij can be calculated only by addition, subtraction, and multiplication simply, or at a high speed. Similarly, the reliability level Lrj of task j can be calculated by taking note of the probability of error occurrence in the computer modules executing task j. Assuming that N1 numbers of computer modules executing task j, the probability of wrong calculation results of task j with error occurring in all the computer modules is Pe = Pε N1 We can obtain logarithm of Eq. 13 before processing it, like Eq. 7, as Fij = K4 - N1 x K1 Thus, the evaluation function Fij can be simplified as above. A condition judgement step 301 in the figure compares the evaluation functions Fij of tasks with the evaluation function Fik of task k executed currently, where j is 1 to n and n is number of tasks. As a result, if there is task j meeting Fij < Fik, task k executed currently is ended and task j is started. Fig. 27 depicts a timing chart illustrating instants of the end of task k and the start of task j. As for a computer for feedback control, as in Fig. 27, it reads input data periodically every control frame before executing the task to feed out results. Let the computer module i execute task k, and assume that Fij < Fik is made by fault occurrence in the computer module executing task j in a control frame 1. The computer module i ends task k instantly before starting preparation for executing task j. If the data (history data) until the preceding control frame are not needed to start task j, the computer module i can start task j from control frame 2. If the history data are needed to start task j, on the other hand, as in Fig. 27, the computer module i uses a control frame 2 to collect the history data before starting task j from a control frame 3. Note that the history data can be collected by requesting through the communication path 11 the computer module already executing task j. D. SETTING DEAD-ZONE TO PREVENT HUNTING Fig. 28 depicts a timing chart illustrating an embodiment of dead-zone δ provided for judgement in the condition judgement step 301. In the figure, if there is task j meeting Fij < Fik - δ , task k executed currently is ended before task j is started. The embodiment in the figure further improves the operation of the one in Fig. 26. In the embodiment in Fig. 26, as shown in Fig. 29, the operation is that: (1) Fault occurrence makes Fij < Fik. If the computer module executing task k starts execution of task j at instant t1, the evaluation function Fij becomes high, while the evaluation function Fik becomes low. (2) If Fij and Fik are reverted in magnitude to make Fij > Fik, the computer module having started execution of task j starts task k at instant t2 again. As a result of repetition of operations (1) and (2) above, it is probable that an operational efficiency of the system is lowered by collection of history data and other operations. To overcome such a problem, as shown in Fig. 28, there is provided the dead-zone that is greater than changes of Fij and Fik at the instant of task switching for the judgement in the condition judgement step 301. The dead-zone δ is to provide a hysteresis characteristic that allows the system to run stably as shown in Fig. 30 without occurrence of the hunting at the instant of execution task switching. As Pε, Pεd, and Pεa are known, we can see in advance changes of Fij, including ∂Fij/∂N1, ∂Fij/∂N2, and ∂Fij/∂N3, with changes of N1, N2, and N3. Accordingly, we should set wider dead-zone δ than max (∂Fij/∂N1, ∂Fij/∂N2, ∂Fij/∂N3). With the embodiments described above in Figs. 20 to 30, as shown in Fig. 31, we can see that the system can balance among the redundancies of the tasks according to the reliability levels required for the tasks in the way that the computer modules are successively assigned to tasks 1 to n. The balance can be kept even if fault occurrence causes the computer modules forming the redundant system to be continually lost with time. Also, the embodiments assign more redundant computer modules as the task having high importance is needed to have high reliability so that a coverage of fault detections can be increased. E. TIME AVERAGING TO INCREASE STABILITY The system stability can be further increased by addition of an embodiment shown in Fig. 32 to the ones in Figs. 20 to 31. Fig. 32 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of averaging Lrj or Pe with time while the evaluation function Fij is calculated. The embodiments in Figs. 20 to 31 can make the computer module start execution of task j to hold Fij <HS1452> Fik in the computer module i having the highest Lthij, or bearing the highest responsibility for task j, among the computer modules executing task k, if fault occurs in the computer modules executing task j. This can keep the reliability level of task j as indicated by solid line a in Fig. 33. If even the computer module i is at failure in that operation, there is no computer modules to start execution of task j newly. This results in that the reliability level of task j is left low as indicated by dotted line b in Fig. 33. In other words, the fault of the computer module i affects results of the redundant resource management, thereby lowering the stability of the system. To overcome such a problem, as shown in Fig. 32, Lrj or Pej should be averaged in a period of time while the evaluation function Fij is calculated. This can gradually lower Fij with time as indicated by solid line in Fig. 34. If there exists the computer module i bearing the highest responsibility for task j, as indicated by dotted line a in Fig. 34, the computer module i can start execution of task j at instant t1, thereby restoring the value of Fij. If there exists no computer module i but exists a computer module i' bearing the secondly highest responsibility for task j, as indicated by dotted line b in Fig. 34, the computer module i' can start execution of task j at instant t2, thereby restoring the value of Fij. If there exists no computer module i nor computer module i' but exists a computer module i'' bearing the thirdly highest responsibility for task j, as indicated by dotted line c in Fig. 34, the computer module i'' can start execution of task j at instant t3, thereby restoring the value of Fij. Methods of averaging Lrj or Pe with time include: (1) A method of motion averaging, and (2) A method of use of K'th delay of which transfer function G(s) = 1/(1 + Ts)^K . The embodiment has such a advantageous capability as increasing the fault tolerance of the tolerant resource method itself. The advantage is accomplished in the way that fault of the specific computer modules bearing high responsibilities for the task can be made to reduce effect to the results of the redundant resource management. F. REDUCING AMOUNTS OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CALCULATIONS Fig. 35 depicts a timing diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention for relaxing increases of amount of communications among the computer modules 1101 to 110m and of calculations of the evaluation functions. In the embodiments described in Figs. 20 to 34, it is needed to perform Ncom {= m(m - 1)} times of communications so that the own computer module has to notice, or broadcast, its fault detection situation to all the other computer modules. This increases the amount of communications to a great extent. To solve such a problem, as shown in Fig. 35, the evaluation function fault detection situation is ordinarily noticed only to the computer module executing the same task. Only if the evaluation function Fij changes, that is noticed to all the other computer modules. As an example, let us examine an operation that the computer modules 1 to 3 execute task 1, while the computer module i executes task 2. A control frame 1 do not find any abnormality in the computer modules 1 to 3. Communication is made only among the computer modules 1 to 3. In turn, let us inspect a case that a control frame 2 finds a fault in the computer module 3. The first communication is made among the computer modules 1 to 3. The evaluation function Fij calculated on the basis of the fault detection information exchanged through the communication is lower than the preceding one (control frame 1) because of the fault i the computer module 3, which is silent. The control frame 2 therefore succeeds to the second communication to notice to the computer module i that the evaluation function Fij is lowered. The computer module i judges whether or not the own computer module should participate in execution of task 1. If so, it halts execution of task 2 before starting execution of task 1. Number of times of communication among the computer modules by the example is given by Ncom' = j =1 n N1j ·( N1j -1) ( time ) where Nij is number of the computer modules executing task j. In Eq. 15, j =1 n N1j=m , N1j ≒ m/n The number of times of communication by the example becomes Ncom' Ncom/n, which is near 1/n. Fig. 36 depicts a flow chart illustrating a judgement whether or not broadcasting should be made to all the computer modules for the embodiment in Fig. 35. First, at step 302, the computer modules executing the same task exchange the fault detection information among one another. At step 300', on the basis of the information exchange, the evaluation functions Fij are calculated. Note that the calculations of the evaluation functions Fij at step 300' are for the computer modules executing the same task. This is different from the ones for all the computer modules at step 300 in Figs. 26, 28, and 37. Step 300' for calculations of the evaluation functions Fij should calculate Fij only by the number of times (O (m/n)) of the computer modules executing the same tasks, while step 300 for calculations of the evaluation functions Fij is needed to calculate Fij by m times. This means that the amount of calculations can be reduced nearly to 1/n. After the calculations of the evaluation functions Fij at step 300', step 303 compares the present values of Fij with the preceding ones of Fijold. If they are not equal, step 304 broadcasts the fault information to all the computer modules. Finally, step 305 stores the present values of the evaluation functions Fij to variables Fijold to prepare for the next time. On the other hand, the computer modules having received the broadcast, as shown in Fig. 37, judge at step 306 whether or not the broadcast is to all the areas. Only if it is to all the areas, the step goes to the judgement in Fig. 26 or 28. G. APPLICATION TO AN ADAPTIVE-CONTROL SYSTEM Fig. 38 depicts a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of the present invention for application to an adaptive-control system. In the embodiment, a sensor 9 measures physical quantity of a controlled system 8. A status viewer 16 observes, or estimate, status of the controlled system 8. On the basis of the observed status, then, it feeds back to the controlled system 8 via a regulator 17 having adequate controlling characteristics and an actuator 7. The embodiment described above is a typical configuration of the controlling system of state feedback type based on the modern control theory. Further, a controlled system characteristic identifier 18 signifies characteristics of the controlled systems 8, including the sensor 9 and the actuator 7, in terms of signals input to the sensor 9 and the actuator 7. An optimum regulator designer 19 calculates parameters for the regulator 17 optimum to control in terms of identification results of characteristics of the controlled system 8. The designer 19 then sets the parameters for the regulator 17 to optimum values. The adaptive-control system described above can increase the control characteristics. In particular, the system is known optimum for controlling such a controlled system as its characteristics changes apparently with altitude and speed in a linearly approximated controlling system by non-linear aerodynamic characteristics of airplanes and space shuttle. Further, even if fault occurs in the controlled system 8, the sensor 9, or actuator 7, the control system recognizes it as a characteristic change of the controlled system. Whenever it happens, the control system can set an optimum parameter to the regulator 17 so that the characteristic deterioration due to the fault of the controlled system can be compensated. In general, control systems having high reliability demanded have the actuators duplexed. In the airplane, for example, control surface, including an elevator and a rudder, and a thrust generator are made redundant so that the airplane can fly without trouble even if parts of them break down. However, if the parts of the actuators made redundant break down, gains of the actuators decrease equivalently. This means control characteristics of the whole system are deteriorated. In some cases, controlled values interfere each other. This makes very difficult controlling through manual operations. To solve this problem, the adaptive-control system of the embodiment has the characteristic identifier 18 to detect the gain decrease of the actuator 7. The optimum regulator designer 19 decides optimum parameters for the regulator 17. This can compensate the deterioration of the control characteristic performance. The application of the present invention to the adaptive-control system in the embodiment is accomplished in the following way. The status viewer 16 and the regulator 17 are formed of task 1 or task group 1. The controlled system characteristic identifier 18 and the optimum regulator designer 19 are formed of task 2 or task group 2. Setting is made as Lth11 > Lth21 > Lth31 > Lth41 > Lth51, and Lth12 < Lth22 < Lth32 < Lth42 < Lth52, and Lth11 > Lth52 and Lth21 > Lth42, and Lth31 > Lth32 and Lth41 > Lth22 and Lth51 > Lth11. If there exists no computer module for executing task 2 or task group 2, a table of numbers is prepared in advance to set the parameters for the regulator 17. Fig. 39 depicts a table illustrating how the embodiment can manage the redundant resource. First, five computer modules are normal, three computer modules are assigned to task 1 or task group 1 and two computer modules are to task 2 or task group 2. If one computer module breaks down leaving four normal computer modules, two computer modules are assigned to task 1 or task group 1 and two computer modules are to task 2 or task group 2. If two computer modules break down leaving three normal computer modules, two computer modules are assigned to task 1 or task group 1 and one computer module is to task 2 or task group 2. If three computer modules break down leaving two normal computer modules, two computer modules are assigned to task 1 or task group 1 and no computer modules are assigned to task 2 or task group 2. Alternatively, the table of numbers prepared in advance is used to set the parameters for the regulator 17 to continue control. As described above, the embodiment can configurate the control system that can not only allow fault of the computer modules, but also the one of the controlled system. This advantage can increase the reliability of the whole control system. Figs. 40, 41, and 42 depict a cross-sectioned view, a longitudinally sectioned view, and a circuit diagram illustrating a servo-motor system having features of output selection and decision of majority as an embodiment of the present invention, respectively. The servo-motor system provides both capabilities of the output selector circuits 151 to 151 and the output units 171 to 17λ in Fig. 20. The servo-motor in the embodiment, as shown in Fig. 40, has a plurality of armature windings 7041 to 7041 provided on a single shaft 701 in a housing 702. The servomotor also has a plurality of field windings 7031 to 7031 corresponding to the armature windings faced with the armature windings. A cross-sectional view taken across A-A' in Fig. 40 is shown in Fig. 41. An output torque of the servo-motor is given by T = i =1 l K · Ifi · Iai where Ifi is a current flowing through the field winding 703i, Iai is a current flowing through the armature winding 704i, and K is a proportion coefficient. If all of Ifi are made constant, then T = i =1 l K' · Iai where K' is a proportion coefficient equal to K x Ifi. If Ifi is entered, it is possible to make an operation similar to decision of majority (hereinafter referred to as the para-decision of majority). If value of each Ifi is made to proportion to the reliability of the input Iai, a weighed para-decision of majority can be made as shown in Eq. 17. Fig. 42 depicts a circuit diagram illustrating a circuit for making the weighed para-decision of majority with use of the servo-motor system having the para-decision of majority in Figs. 40 and 41. The circuit shown in the figure are to provide the capabilities of the output selector circuit 151 and the output unit 171 in Fig. 20. The same circuits are used for those of the output selector circuits 152 to 15λ and the output units 172 to 17λ. To the armature windings 7041 to 7041 and the field windings 7031 to 7031 are supplied currents in proportion to the signals 31-1 to 3m-1 and the selection control signals 41-1 to 4m-1 from the computer module modules 1101 to 110m through servo-amplifiers, respectively. Such a scheme can accomplish the decision of majority of the signals 31-1 to 3m-1 from the computer module modules 1101 to 110m regarded normal by the selection control signals 41-1 to 4m-1. Further, the servo-amplifiers, the armature windings 7041 to 7041, and the field windings 7031 to 7031 can be multiplexed to prevent the system from malfunctioning due to difficulty of the servo-amplifiers or shortcircuit or break of the windings, thereby increasing the reliability of the servo-motor system. Also, the selection control signals 41-1 to 4m-1 can be multivalued corresponding the reliabilities of the computer modules, including the two values of on and off, to accomplish the weighed para-decision of majority. Fig. 43 depicts a block diagram illustrating a system configuration in use for the servomotor systems. Such a system can be accomplished by replacing the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ and the output units 171 to 17λ in Fig. 20 by the servo-motor systems 7001 to 700λ, respectively. As described above, the embodiment has the advantage that the whole system configuration can be simplified, made small, and reduced in number of component parts to increase the reliability since the servo-motor systems can accomplish the features of the output selector circuits 151 to 15λ and the output units 171 to 17λ in Fig. 20. We can see that Ifi and Iai in Eq. 17 can be exchanged for each other. Therefore, the same effect can be obtained even by supplying the current in proportion to the signals 31-1 to 3m-1 from the computer module modules 1101 to 110m to the field windings 7031 to 7031 and the selection control signals 41-1 to 4m-1 to the armature windings 7041 to 7041, respectively. The embodiment of the present invention described above can increase the redundant resource processing performance and reliability since adequate number of redundant resources can be assigned according to the reliable levels needed for the tasks. Further, by applying the present invention to the adaptive-control system, the embodiment can configurate the control system that can not only allow fault of the computer modules, but also the one of the controlled system. This advantage can increase the reliability of the whole control system. 3. Diversities These embodiments are especially intending to materialize self-checking logics stated in chapter 1. Furthermore, by taking means called diversities as shown below, faults to be detected in any of at-least dualized function blocks can be prevented from affecting the other function block, improving the said effectiveness of the embodiments. The method to materialize such the diversities to be explained below can be combined with the self-checking comparison circuit 217 provided by Japanese Patent Laid-Open No.27664/1994, which is described in the previous chapter, effectively to materialize a self-checking logical circuit or system. Of course, it can also be combined other technologies to build a high reliability system such as a self-checking system, fault tolerant system, fail-safe system, etc. (1) Design diversity The design diversity is a means effective to eliminate the influence of faults caused by designs. Especially, N-Version Programming for software is well known. The N-Version Programming is a method to execute N versions of a program that are developed with the same specifications concurrently. Also in case of hardware, this design diversity can be materialized by developing circuits with the same specifications in N ways. According to the method mentioned above, however, the number of processes and expenses are needed by N times that of an ordinary method for the design and development. It is not effective so much. To reduce the number of processes and expenses in designing hardware, therefore, the following method is taken in this invention. As shown in Figure 44, the main current to design modern hardware is using the HDL (Hardware Description Language) first to create a file (logical description) 300 that describes the functions and specifications of the subject logical circuits and then creating another file (logical net list) 320 that describes the connections of the said logical circuits using a logical synthesis tool 310 on the basis of the logical description 300. In addition, the said logical net list file 320 is converted to a (physical net list) file 340 that describes the wiring and layout of transistors on the actual semi-conductor chip using an auto wiring tool to create the necessary masks and manufacture semiconductor elements (350). In this case, the design constraints such as the delay time, occupation area, etc., as well as the subject algorithm can be changed for logical synthesis and automatic wiring to diversify the target logical net lists 320 to 32N and physical net lists 340 to 34N as shown in Figure 45. Thus, the said dualized function blocks A110 and B111 are materialized in the subject semi-conductor chip on the basis of the logical description of the said logical blocks by selecting 2 physical net lists from among the said diversified plural physical net lists. To select 2 physical net lists from among many, as shown in Figure 46, it is only needed to define a correlation function that indicates how much those physical net lists are resemble and find the correlation among them (procedure 360) and select a combination of the physical net lists (procedure 370) so that the correlation function may be minimized. In this case, fault characteristics of the semi-conductor must be affected in the correlation function. In general, wire intersection is pointed out as a weak point of semiconductors. At a wire intersection, two wires are separated only by a thin film oxide, so shortcircuits between wires and shorts such as crosstalk, etc. are apt to occur. Furthermore, since a wire crosses over the other wire at such a wire intersection, the wire located at the difference of level is often cut off with stress. In other words, the status of the intersection between wires affects the fault characteristics of semi-conductors. The correlation function in which the fault characteristics of the semi-conductor is affected can thus be defined as follows. Φ k1k2 = i =1 m j =1 n  ijk1 · jik2 However, the ijk must indicate whether an intersection exists between wiring nets and be defined as follows. (2) Time diversity Faults that occurs due to electric noise, etc. in any of the said at-least dualized function blocks can be prevented from affecting the other function block even when both of the function blocks are designed in the same way, by delaying the timings of their operations individually. Figures 47, 48, and 49 show embodiments of a system to materialize such a time diversity. In the embodiment shown in Figure 47, only the clock signal 401 is entered to one Bill of the dualized function blocks through the delay circuit 420 that is set a delay time (T delay) to delay the operation timing. In this case, the output 431 from the function block B111 is delayed by a certain time of period (T delay) from the output 430 from the function block A110. Thus, the output 430 from the function block A110 is delayed by a certain time (T delay) using the delay circuit 421 so that outputs 430 and 431 are compared in the comparison circuit 217. In this embodiment, since the function blocks A110 and B110 can be operated at different timings from each other, malfunctions to be caused by power noise, etc. can be prevented from occurring concurrently in both function blocks A110 and B110. This allows a perfect self-checking logic to be realized by dualizing a function block and comparing outputs from both of the at-least dualized function blocks. When there are signals 410 and 411 to be entered the dualized function blocks A110 and B111, only the signal 401 may be entered to the function block B111 through the delay circuit 422 that is set a delay time (T delay) as shown in Figure 48. In this embodiment, any delay time (T delay) can be selected, but the delay time (T delay) should be as large as possible to minimize the correlation of faults between the function blocks A110 and B111. To speed up the operation and detection of faults, however, the delay time (T delay) should be as small as possible. In addition, to minimize the mutual influence of noise between the function blocks A110 and B111 considering that power noise in a digital circuit is generated in synchronization with clock signals, the delay time (T delay) should be set as follows. T delay = N+1/2 [clock cycle] N=0, 1... To satisfy both items (influence by noise and operation speed) therefore, it is found that the most suitable delay time (T delay) is 1/2 [of the clock cycle]. Figure 49 shows an embodiment of this invention, in which the delay time (T delay) is set to 1/2 [of the clock cycle]. The original clock signal 403 that has a frequency double the clock signals 400 and 401 of the dualized function blocks A110 and B111 is divided in the flip-flop 441 to become clock signals 400 and 401 whose phases are shifted by 180°, that is, 1/2 [of the clock cycle], from each other. They are then entered to the function blocks A110 and B111 separately. Input signals INsync and INasync are entered to the function block A110 without delay. They are then entered to the function block B111 after they are delayed by 1/2 [of the clock cycle] in the flip-flops 444 and 445 (equivalent to the delay circuit 422). The input signal INsync is synchronized with the clock signal 400. The input signal INasync is not synchronized with the clock signal 400. In other words, it is an asynchronous input signal. The INasync signal is synchronized with the clock signal 400 in the flip-flop circuits 442 and 443. The output 430 from the function block A110 is delayed by 1/2 [of the clock cycle] in the flip-flop circuit 446 (equivalent to the delay circuit 421) and compared with the output 431 from the function block B111 in the comparison circuit 217. (3) Space diversity When one of the dualized function blocks is separated away from the other, it becomes possible to prevent temporary faults to occur in one of dualized function blocks due to electrical noise, cosmic rays, radiation, etc., as well as due to the damage of the subject semi-conductor chip from affecting the other. When a function block is dualized in a chip as A110 and B111 and each is checked by itself, the dualized function blocks A110 and B111 should be arranged in the same direction and in the same pattern as shown in Figure 50 to maximize the effectiveness of the space diversity. The corresponding sections of the dualized function blocks can thus have the same distance. As a result, it can be prevented that the said corresponding sections of the dualized function blocks come close excessively to each other to deteriorate the said effectiveness of the space diversity. In this embodiment, the comparison circuits 30 to 3n used to compare outputs, the area 0 (200) comprising an integrated circuit 5, orthogonal waveform generator circuits 100 and 101, permutors 80 to 8n and 90 to 9n, latches 120 and 121 are arranged symmetrically so that their wirings may become short-cut and wiring intersections may be reduced to ensure the continuity. In such the symmetrical arrangement of circuits, the outputs a0' - an' and b0' - bn' from the function blocks A110 and B111 come most closely in the area 0 (200). However, since each orthogonal waveform is placed on another to eliminate the correlation between the waveforms, faults by short, etc. can be prevented. According to this embodiment, the effectiveness of the space diversity can be applied to isolate faults in one of dualized function blocks from the other for securing the wiring continuity, improving the self-checking performance (fault detection rate and detection coverage) to realize small-sized self-checking logical circuits. This invention can provide a new method that assures the said fail-safe function even to cope with false signature to be caused by a short. No special constraint is needed to materialize failsafe logic circuits according to this invention. In addition, existing semi-conductor technologies, design automation tools, etc. can also be used effectively to reduce the cost and time of development significantly.

Claims: A logic circuit having an error detection function for detecting an error by way of comparing (30...3n) signals output of at least duplexed function blocks (110, 111); characterized in that: said logic circuit having synthesizing means (100; 80...8n) provided to superimpose inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective function blocks on one or both of the signals output of said at least duplexed function blocks (110, 111), thereby detecting the error on the basis of a signal or signals output of said synthesizing means (100; 80...8n). The logic circuit having error detection function according to claim 1 wherein the synthesizing means (100; 80...8n) includes waveform generating means (100) for generating the inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective function blocks (110, 111) and logic operation means for exclusive-OR operation of the generated inherent waveform and the output signals of the function blocks. The logic circuit having error detection function according to claim 1 wherein each of the function blocks (110, 111) feeds out a plurality of signals, and the synthesizing means (100; 80...8n) superimposes the inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective function blocks (110, 111) onto the signals output of the function blocks (110, 111), thereby detecting the error, and signals output of the synthesizing means (100; 80...8n) are compared with the signals output of the other function block (110, 111), thereby detecting the error. The logic circuit having error detection function according to claim 3 wherein the synthesizing means (100; 80...8n) includes waveform generating means (100), for generating the inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals and logic operation means for exclusive-OR operation of the generated inherent waveform and the output signal of the one function block (110, 111). The logic circuit having error detection function according to claim 3 wherein the inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals are waveforms that are not correlated to one another. The logic circuit having error detection function according to claim 3 wherein the inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals are waveforms that are orthogonal to one another. The logic circuit having error detection function according to claim 1, wherein said synthesizing means comprises: a first synthesizing means (80..8n) for superimposing a unique waveform which is assigned in advance for each output signal on an output signal from one of the function blocks (110); and a second synthesizing means (90..9n) for superimposing a unique waveform which is assigned in advance for each output signal on an output signal from the other one of the function blocks (111), and further comprises comparison means (30..3n) for detecting an error by comparing an output from said first synthesizing means (80..8n) and an output from said second synthesizing means (80..8n). An error detecting method for detecting an error by way of comparing a plurality of signals output of duplexed function blocks (110, 111), the method characterized by: a step of superimposing (80...8n) inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals onto the output signals of one of the duplexed function blocks (110, 111); and a step of comparing signal (30...3n) outputs of the other one of said duplexed function blocks (110, 111) with signals having the inherent waveforms superimposed , thereby detecting the error. The error detecting method according to claim 8 wherein the inherent waveforms are superimposed in a way that exclusive-OR operation is made of the output signals of the one of the duplexed function blocks and the inherent waveforms assigned in advance to the respective output signals. A logic circuit having an error detection function according to claim 7, comprising: a first circuit having at least a CPU, an interrupt controller, and a timer for generating a plurality of output signals; a second circuit having the same features as the first circuit; and a comparison circuit for comparing the signals output of the first and second circuits; wherein the first and second circuits have said first and second synthesizing means (80..8n, 90..9n) respectively, provided therein, and the first and second circuits and the comparison circuit are arranged in respectively individual chips. A fault tolerant system, comprising: a logic circuit according to claim 1, the duplexed function blocks (110, 111) being formed by first and second computers, wherein the system further includes; a switching control circuit for selecting either one of the signals output of the first and second computers before feeding the signal out; wherein the switching control circuit select the signal output of any one of the first and second computers on the basis of error detection signals output of the first and second computers.

Inventors: BEKKI KEISUKE, NOHMI MAKOTO, SATO HIROSHI, SATO YOSHIMICHI, SUZUKI SHOJI, TASHIRO KOREFUMI, BEKKI, KEISUKE, NOHMI, MAKOTO, SATO, HIROSHI, SATO, YOSHIMICHI, SUZUKI, SHOJI, TASHIRO, KOREFUMI
Applicants: HITACHI LTD, HITACHI, LTD.
Application year: 1994
Main classification: G06F11
IPC codes: G06F11, G05B9